problem with my wireless card
in [Dell]
|
Prev: Vostro 3400 owners
Next: Is this BS
From: MJMIII on 7 Apr 2010 12:55 "William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fa78880b-48e2-4561-b822-1dcde568b92b(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Hi! > >> Don't pay attention to Chris Muto as he thinks he is the moderator >> of this newsgroup. > > Chris is technically correct. :-) It's not the usual way of things to > have another poster start their topic in an already established > discussion belonging to someone else. This is the one thing that is a > pretty well agreed upon constant on Usenet. > > That's not as much a question of moderation as it is of readability. > In that vein, things get a lot more difficult when another poster > jumps in and poses a totally new question in an already existing > discussion thread...and that's assuming the threading stays intact! If > someone's news server misses a posting or three (not all that > uncommon) then things are really going to start looking off. > > There are other reasons why this is bad form and should be avoided. > I'm sure you can think of them. :-) > > The topic may in fact drift a little in an established thread, but > that is pretty common (in the groups I frequent) and so far as I know, > most people are OK with it. > > The poster of this question should therefore start their own thread > for the best possible result. > > "That is all." > Concurred X 10! -- "Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
From: RnR on 7 Apr 2010 13:17 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:55:38 -0400, "MJMIII" <balrog(a)castaway.net> wrote: > >"William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:fa78880b-48e2-4561-b822-1dcde568b92b(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> Hi! >> >>> Don't pay attention to Chris Muto as he thinks he is the moderator >>> of this newsgroup. >> >> Chris is technically correct. :-) It's not the usual way of things to >> have another poster start their topic in an already established >> discussion belonging to someone else. This is the one thing that is a >> pretty well agreed upon constant on Usenet. >> >> That's not as much a question of moderation as it is of readability. >> In that vein, things get a lot more difficult when another poster >> jumps in and poses a totally new question in an already existing >> discussion thread...and that's assuming the threading stays intact! If >> someone's news server misses a posting or three (not all that >> uncommon) then things are really going to start looking off. >> >> There are other reasons why this is bad form and should be avoided. >> I'm sure you can think of them. :-) >> >> The topic may in fact drift a little in an established thread, but >> that is pretty common (in the groups I frequent) and so far as I know, >> most people are OK with it. >> >> The poster of this question should therefore start their own thread >> for the best possible result. >> >> "That is all." >> > >Concurred X 10! As I said before, I disagree in practice (not theory). Go all around usenet and you will see this violated every day. No big deal using Google tho.
From: RnR on 7 Apr 2010 13:19 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), "William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Hi! > >> My wife own an inspiron 1545 laptop. She upgraded the >> wireless card for an "N" card. > >What wireless card was used? Who is the maker and what is the model #? > >> I even tried a clean install of vista. Nothing worked. > >The software is not likely to be the problem in that case. > >> Is this something we can fix ourself? > >Yes, put the original wireless card back into place. > >> Or is it on soldered on the mother board? > >I'm wondering if you really replaced the wireless card. No, it is not >soldered. It fits into a mini-PCI (or maybe even mini PCI express >these days) slot that is covered by a door on the bottom of the >computer. > >If the wireless card had been replaced, you would have had to open >that door and physically remove (and later replace) a board. > >If that didn't happen, the computer may now have two wireless network >devices in it, resulting in a hopelessly confused situation. One >should be disabled or removed in that case. > >It is entirely possible that the wireless antennas built into the >computer may not be suitable for use with a Wireless "N" network. I >think the best thing to do would be to put the old card back into >place and use it. > >William Like yourself, I think we need some more information. It gets challenging with lack of information. I'm not blaming the OP for this, just making an observation.
From: MJMIII on 7 Apr 2010 14:56 "RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2ffpr5d6u48noidckupi0vqmfs07i9kuha(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:55:38 -0400, "MJMIII" <balrog(a)castaway.net> > wrote: > >> >>"William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:fa78880b-48e2-4561-b822-1dcde568b92b(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> Hi! >>> >>>> Don't pay attention to Chris Muto as he thinks he is the moderator >>>> of this newsgroup. >>> >>> Chris is technically correct. :-) It's not the usual way of things to >>> have another poster start their topic in an already established >>> discussion belonging to someone else. This is the one thing that is a >>> pretty well agreed upon constant on Usenet. >>> >>> That's not as much a question of moderation as it is of readability. >>> In that vein, things get a lot more difficult when another poster >>> jumps in and poses a totally new question in an already existing >>> discussion thread...and that's assuming the threading stays intact! If >>> someone's news server misses a posting or three (not all that >>> uncommon) then things are really going to start looking off. >>> >>> There are other reasons why this is bad form and should be avoided. >>> I'm sure you can think of them. :-) >>> >>> The topic may in fact drift a little in an established thread, but >>> that is pretty common (in the groups I frequent) and so far as I know, >>> most people are OK with it. >>> >>> The poster of this question should therefore start their own thread >>> for the best possible result. >>> >>> "That is all." >>> >> >>Concurred X 10! > > > As I said before, I disagree in practice (not theory). Go all around > usenet and you will see this violated every day. No big deal using > Google tho. Just because it's become a common practice in Usenet doesn't make it right. The M$ newsgroups are full of morons who hijack threads or reply to 5 y/o threads. They make my day!! -- "Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
From: RnR on 7 Apr 2010 16:12
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:56:57 -0400, "MJMIII" <balrog(a)castaway.net> wrote: >"RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:2ffpr5d6u48noidckupi0vqmfs07i9kuha(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:55:38 -0400, "MJMIII" <balrog(a)castaway.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:fa78880b-48e2-4561-b822-1dcde568b92b(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>>> Don't pay attention to Chris Muto as he thinks he is the moderator >>>>> of this newsgroup. >>>> >>>> Chris is technically correct. :-) It's not the usual way of things to >>>> have another poster start their topic in an already established >>>> discussion belonging to someone else. This is the one thing that is a >>>> pretty well agreed upon constant on Usenet. >>>> >>>> That's not as much a question of moderation as it is of readability. >>>> In that vein, things get a lot more difficult when another poster >>>> jumps in and poses a totally new question in an already existing >>>> discussion thread...and that's assuming the threading stays intact! If >>>> someone's news server misses a posting or three (not all that >>>> uncommon) then things are really going to start looking off. >>>> >>>> There are other reasons why this is bad form and should be avoided. >>>> I'm sure you can think of them. :-) >>>> >>>> The topic may in fact drift a little in an established thread, but >>>> that is pretty common (in the groups I frequent) and so far as I know, >>>> most people are OK with it. >>>> >>>> The poster of this question should therefore start their own thread >>>> for the best possible result. >>>> >>>> "That is all." >>>> >>> >>>Concurred X 10! >> >> >> As I said before, I disagree in practice (not theory). Go all around >> usenet and you will see this violated every day. No big deal using >> Google tho. > >Just because it's become a common practice in Usenet doesn't make it right. >The M$ newsgroups are full of morons who hijack threads or reply to 5 y/o >threads. They make my day!! Ok but I only see Chris Muto speaking out so I wonder how many are really bothered by it or perhaps they feel like me that it is no big deal? This newsgroup seems to do well over time regardless of the unique posters (for lack of a better word). |